wfn.org | Prohibition against performing homosexual unions ruled

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.UMC.ORG>]

enforceable

August 11, 1998          Contact: Joretta
Purdue*(202)546-8722*Washington       {471}

NOTE: FULL TEXT OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL DECISION IS AT THE END OF THIS
STORY. 

DALLAS  - The United Methodist Church's highest judicial council has
ruled that ministers who conduct "ceremonies that celebrate homosexual
unions" are liable to be brought to church trial.

Responding to a request by the bishops of the church's eight-state South
Central Jurisdiction, the Judicial Council said that the prohibition
against performing such ceremonies or allowing them to be conducted in
United Methodist churches governs ministerial conduct, "notwithstanding
its placement" in the denomination's Social Principles.

"Conduct in violation of this prohibition renders a pastor liable to a
charge of disobedience to the order and discipline of the United
Methodist Church," declared the council's decision released Aug. 11.
The nine-member court met in special session in Dallas Aug. 7-8. 

The council decided to limit its jurisdiction in this decision to the
sentence: "Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be
conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches."
The statement was added to the Social Principles by the 1996 General
Conference, the denomination's top policy-making body. 

The College of Bishops of the South Central Jurisdiction asked the
Judicial Council to rule on whether the sentence governs the conduct of
ministers and if violation of it constitutes a chargeable offense - one
that could bring a clergy person to church trial.

Similar questions from North Alabama and Nebraska annual (regional)
conferences were incorporated in the same decision. 

Some of the questions on whether violating the prohibition is a
chargeable offense have centered around its placement in the Book of
Discipline, the denomination's book of rules. It is placed in the Social
Principles rather than in the chapter that deals with ministry of
ordained clergy or in the list of chargeable offenses found in the
chapter on judicial administration.

In the analysis section of the decision, the council reviewed the
legislative history of the prohibition added to the Social Principles
and decided, "The deliberations of the General Conference are indicative
that the legislative committees and the delegates to General Conference
were enacting legislation that would be binding as the law of the
church."

Passing this legislation was a legitimate exercise of General
Conference's constitutional authority to define and fix the powers and
duties of ministers of the church, the council affirmed.

"The prohibitive statement governs the function of all clergy members of
the United Methodist Church," the council noted.

Oral presentations were made by two groups. Bishops Dan Solomon of Baton
Rouge, La., and Bruce Blake of  Oklahoma City represented the South
Central College of Bishops.

Representing a different point of view were Mike McClellan, a member of
First United Methodist Church, Omaha, Neb.; the Rev. Douglas J.
Williamson, a faculty member at Nebraska Wesleyan University; and the
Rev. Jimmy Creech, who was charged with violating the order and
discipline of  the church after he performed a ceremony for two lesbians
in September. In his March church trial, the jury of 13 clergy voted 8
to 5, one vote short of the nine necessary to convict him.

Solomon said that the placement of the prohibition in the denomination's
Social Principles does not make it less a law. He noted that other parts
of  the Discipline interact with the Social Principles.

"When the spirit and intent of the Book of Discipline is violated, all
of the book is violated," Blake asserted. "All of the book depends on
each part of the book."
 
McClellan, an attorney, said not all statements in the Discipline are
prosecutable, just as all laws are not prosecutable. He quoted from the
final paragraph of the preface to the Social Principles, which describes
that document as "a prayerful and thoughtful effort of the General
Conference," "intended to be instructive and persuasive" and a call for
all members to "a dialogue of faith and practice."

Williamson urged looking at the whole Discipline. The prohibitive
statement conflicts with the church's assertion that homosexuals are
"persons of sacred worth" and its advocacy of equal rights for all
persons regardless of sexual orientation, he said. Both references are
in the Social Principles. He also cited Article 4 of the church's
constitution, which deals with inclusiveness.

"I love the church," said Creech. "I am dedicated to it." The
connectional system is a wonderful networking of the worldwide church,
he remarked, and it is an ever-moving relationship. "It is not intended
to be a straitjacket," he added. The Social Principles have always been
treated as exhortation, not law, he averred.

The oral presentations opened the special session with a limited amount
of time for each team. The Judicial Council members asked their
questions about the presentations immediately after each speaker
concluded. At the end of the period, Council President Tom Matheny
praised  the presenters, saying they had given the most substantive and
clearest arguments he had heard in oral presentations to the council.
Closed-door deliberations followed.

In dealing with a broader question from the Illinois Great Rivers,
asking whether the Social 
Principles are to be understood as law for the United Methodists, the
Judicial Council said it was "unable to render a definitive decision on
all the specific provisions . . . [in the] Social Principles without a
reference to a specific paragraph." The council added that this is
especially true in relating these matters to chargeable offenses. 

The remaining docket item, a review of a ruling by the bishop of the
Wisconsin Annual Conference during its 1998 session, was determined to
be a parliamentary matter so the council does not have jurisdiction. The
bishop had ruled a resolution prohibiting homosexual unions out of order
on the grounds that such a resolution would have the effect of adding to
the Discipline.

Deliberations in Dallas concluded mid-morning Saturday, Aug.8, but
editing continued through the following Monday by email, phone and fax. 

# # #

This copy subject to final editing and correction.

 	DECISION NO. 833

IN RE:  Request from the College of Bishops of the South Central
Jurisdiction for a Declaratory Decision on Whether the Language
"Ceremonies That Celebrate Homosexual Unions Shall Not Be Conducted by
Our Ministers and Shall Not Be Conducted in Our Churches" in ¶ 65 of the
1996 Discipline Constitutes a Chargeable Offense under  ¶ 2624.  

IN RE:  Request from the Illinois Great Rivers Annual Conference for a
Declaratory Decision on Whether the Social Principles Are to Be
Understood as Law for United Methodists and the Relationship Between the
Social Principles and Chargeable Offense.  

IN RE:  Request from the North Alabama Annual Conference for a
Declaratory Decision That All Homosexual Union Services Are Illegal
under ¶ 15 of the 1996 Discipline. 

IN RE:  Request from the Nebraska Annual Conference for a Declaratory
Decision on Whether the Performance of a Ceremony Celebrating a
Homosexual Union or a Same-Sex Covenanting Ceremony by a United
Methodist Pastor in a United Methodist Church Is a Violation of the
Discipline And, Therefore, a Chargeable Offense under ¶ 2624 of the 1996
Discipline.  

	DIGEST
The prohibitive statement in ¶ 65.C of the 1996 Discipline: "Ceremonies
that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers
and shall not be conducted in our churches," has the effect of church
law, notwithstanding its placement in ¶ 65.C and, therefore, governs the
conduct of the ministerial office.  Conduct in violation of this
prohibition renders a pastor liable to a charge of disobedience to the
Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church under ¶ 2624  of the
Discipline.

	STATEMENT OF FACTS

The College of Bishops of the South Central Jurisdiction of The United
Methodist Church pursuant to the provisions of ¶ 2616 of the 1996
Discipline has petitioned the Judicial Council for a declaratory
decision upon the following question:

			Does the language:  

				Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual
unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be
conducted in our churches. (emphasis supplied)

			in ¶ 65.C) of the Discipline govern the conduct
of the ministerial office in The United Methodist Church and does
violation thereof constitute a chargeable offense pursuant to the
provisions of subparagraph "1." of ¶ 2624. of the Discipline?

The Illinois Great Rivers Annual Conference has petitioned the Judicial
Council for a declaratory decision on the following two questions:

			THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Illinois Great
Rivers Annual conference request the Judicial Council issue a
declaratory decision whether or not the Social Principles (¶¶ 64-70 of
the 1996 The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church) are to
be understood as law for United Methodists; and

			BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Illinois Great
Rivers Annual Conference request a second decision as whether the Social
Principles, as currently written can be properly used to establish
grounds for the chargeable offense for clergy of "disobedience to the
order and discipline of The United Methodist Church." (¶ 2624)

The North Alabama Conference requests a declaratory decision "that all
homosexual union services are illegal under ¶ 15, page 25 of The Book of
Discipline."
The Nebraska Conference of The United Methodist Church, meeting at its
annual session, petitioned the Judicial Council to make a Declaratory
Decision on the following question of law:

			Is the performance of a ceremony celebrating a
homosexual union or a same-sex covenanting ceremony by a United
Methodist pastor in a United Methodist Church a violation of the
Discipline of the United Methodist Church and therefore a chargeable
offense under ¶ 2624 of the 1996 Discipline?

At a hearing in Dallas, Texas, on August 7, 1998, oral presentations
were made by Bishop Dan E. Solomon and Bishop Bruce P. Blake,
representing the South Central Jurisdiction College of Bishops.  Also
appearing were Michael McClellan, Douglas Williamson, and Jimmy Creech. 

	Jurisdiction
The Judicial Council has jurisdiction under ¶ 2616 of the 1996
Discipline.
	Analysis and Rationale

The council has received more than thirty briefs representing many views
of the questions involved.  The council is quite aware of the very
sensitive and volatile nature of the issues.  For these reasons, it must
be stated, as has been stated in other decisions, that the Judicial
Council is not a legislative body.  The council's role, power, authority
and scope are defined in the Discipline of The United Methodist Church,
which includes, but is not limited to the Constitution.  Briefly, under
¶ 2616 the role of the council in declaratory decisions, is to determine
"... the constitutionality, meaning, application, or effect of the
Discipline or any portion thereof or of any act or legislation of a
General Conference; ..."  The council further recognizes that for more
than twenty-five  years the issue of homosexuality has been debated and
discussed in The United Methodist Church, and that the discussion and
debate will continue long after this decision is rendered.  
Having so stated the above, Docket Nos. I, IV and V basically address
the same questions and are to be considered in the council's
determination of the meaning, application, or effect of the legislation
involved and will be considered together.  Docket No. III involves the
same principles of law, but is much broader in its scope and will be
addressed separately in this decision.
           The Judicial Council takes jurisdiction for the narrow
purpose in this decision of dealing with the requests for declaratory
decisions surrounding only the amendment by the 1996 General Conference
to ¶ 65.C. 
The General Conference under the Constitution has the following specific
power and authority as stated therein: 

			¶ 15.  The General Conference shall have full
legislative power over all matters distinctively connectional, and in
the exercise of this power shall have authority as follows: ...

			2.  To define and fix the powers and duties of
elders, deacons ... .

 	 In accordance with these powers and authority the General
Conference adopted the amendment to ¶ 65.C.  A review of the legislative
history of the addition of the sentence: "Ceremonies that celebrate
homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not
be conducted in our churches," reflects the legislative intent of the
1996 General Conference.
 The prohibition against United Methodist ministers conducting
ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions was enacted by the 1996
General Conference.  The legislation came before the Conference on a
petition presented by the Administrative Council of Grace United
Methodist Church, Newport, Kentucky.  The petition was assigned to the
Church and Society Legislative Committee and was assigned number
22493-CS-71-D.  It was submitted as follows:

		Add new text to ¶ 71.C of the 1992 Book of Discipline.
"Ceremonies that celebrate 
		homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our
ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches."

The Legislative Committee brought Petition number 22493 to the Thursday
evening, April 27, 1996, Plenary Session of the General Conference as
Calendar Item No. 2402. (Daily Christian Advocate, Vol. III, p. 583,
April 25, 1996)  The chair of the committee presented it in its original
form. The subcommittee chair also presented the item and commented "One
of the questions that we had was whether we should have received this
petition or whether it should have gone to the Board of Ordained
Ministries.  But we acted on this petition and the vote, 29 to 25, felt
that ceremonies should not be conducted by ministers in our churches."
(Daily Christian Advocate, Vol. III, p. 778, April 27, 1996)
After placing the petition before the body, there was debate and a
motion was made to refer the petition to the "Board of Ordained
Ministry-Board of Higher Education in Ministry."  Debate on the motion
to refer ensued.  The debate centered upon the nature of the Social
Principles and whether the legislation was appropriate for the Social
Principles.  The motion to refer the petition was defeated. (Daily
Christian Advocate, Vol. III, p. 779, April 27, 1996)
The vote to approve Calendar Item No. 2402 was taken and the General
Conference approved it on a vote of 553 for and 321 against. (Daily
Christian Advocate, Vol. III, p. 780, April 27, 1996)
The 1996 General Conference dealt with other issues on homosexuality
during the April 25 evening session.  After the vote approving Calendar
Item No. 2402 prohibiting homosexual unions, the Conference turned to
Petition No. 22408 titled "Creation of Commitment Ceremonies for Same
Sex Couples within The United Methodist Church."  The Legislative
Committee recommended nonconcurrence with this petition and the General
Conference voted 628 to 190 in support of the committee.  A similar
petition was also defeated by a vote of 655 to 203. (Daily Christian
Advocate, Vol. III, p. 788 ff., April 27, 1996)
The next items presented to the General Conference on homosexuality
during this session were from the General/Judicial Administration
Legislative Committee.  These petitions were on the subject of
Chargeable Offenses for Pastors.  The chair of the Subcommittee on
Judicial Matters in the General/Judicial Administrative Committee
presented three petitions that asked "the General Conference to amend ¶
2623.1 of the Book of Discipline by adding to the list of chargeable
offenses for pastors [those] who participate in leadership of same-sex
covenant services uniting gay and lesbian persons."  The committee voted
nonconcurrence, with 44 for, 23 against and 3 abstaining.  The vote of
nonconcurrence, the chair explained, was based especially on the fact
that the committee did not feel that it should vote to add items "to the
Book of Discipline that appear to be self-evident or already and
adequately cared for under other paragraphs within the Book of
Discipline."  With respect to adding to the list of chargeable offenses,
participation in leadership of a same-sex covenant service uniting gay
or lesbian persons, the chair said nonconcurrence was voted because the
committee "felt there is more than adequate paragraphs within the Book
of Discipline, including actions . . . taken today on the new 71.C [now
¶ 65.C], . . . but specifically in ¶ 2623.1e, which declares
'Disobedience to the Order of the Discipline of The United Methodist
Church' as a chargeable offense, adequately and effectively covers this
particular petition . . . " The General Conference supported the
Committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence with a vote of 730.  The
record does not reflect the vote against nonconcurrence. (Daily
Christian Advocate, Vol III, p. 783, April 27, 1996)
            In rendering this decision the Judicial Council  must decide
whether ¶ 65.C is law and whether ¶ 65.C  governs the conduct of the
ministerial office.  Under ¶ 15, the General Conference  has the
authority to speak on connectional matters, and, when this authority
results in a legislative enactment stated in mandatory language, it is
the law of the church, notwithstanding its placement in the Discipline.
The second question raised is: Does the last sentence of ¶ 65.C of the
1996 Discipline: "Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not
be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our
churches," govern the conduct of the ministerial office in The United
Methodist Church and does violation thereof constitute a chargeable
offense pursuant to the provisions of ¶ 2624  of the Discipline?  Par.
304 states that persons to be ordained in The United Methodist Church
are to "...Be accountable to The United Methodist Church, accept its
Discipline and authority, accept the supervision of those appointed to
this ministry, and be prepared to live in the covenant of its ordained
ministers."
The deliberations of the General Conference are indicative that the
Legislative Committees and the delegates to General Conference were
enacting legislation that would be binding as the law of the Church.
The prohibitive statement governs the function of all clergy members of
The United Methodist Church.  The amendment language is descriptive of
expected functions of a clergy member, who has accepted a covenant
relationship to uphold the "Order and Discipline of The United Methodist
Church."   Failure to do so is a disciplinary violation, and therefore,
subjects a pastor to the process of formal complaint, including Fair
Process as defined in the Discipline.
The General Conference, as the legislative body of the Church, has the
constitutional authority to define and fix the powers and duties of the
ministers of the Church.  Pursuant to its constitutional authority, the
1996 General Conference was endowed with authority to enact legislation
that fixes the parameters of United Methodist ministers' power to
conduct ceremonies celebrating homosexual unions.  The General
Conference has said that United Methodist ministers shall not conduct
such ceremonies.  The added language of ¶ 65.C is a proper exercise of
the General Conference's authority.
Decision 694 holds that the General Conference is the body that has
prerogative power over matters distinctively connectional.  In Decision
694, the council was asked to decide whether an Annual Conference had
the authority to establish or alter the official rites and rituals of
the Church.  The case came before the Judicial Council as a result of
the action of the Minnesota Conference in approving a resolution which
gave reconciling congregations the right to offer services of blessings
and celebration of committed relationships of couples of same gender,
and the action of the Troy Conference in approving a resolution
permitting ministers to participate in covenant services.  The Judicial
Council held that the Annual Conference had no authority to establish or
alter the official rites and rituals of the Church.  That authority was
lodged in the General Conference by the Constitution of The United
Methodist Church.  The council went on to declare that "it is the
responsibility of pastors in charge to perform their duties in
compliance with the Discipline and be obedient to the Order and
Discipline of the Church."  This Decision clearly states that the
legislative enactments of the General Conference regarding the duties
and powers of ministers are binding on ministers in the connection and
their conduct must conform to those provisions.
The Discipline states that "disobedience to the Order and Discipline of
The United Methodist Church" constitutes a chargeable offense,
rendering a pastor liable to a charge of disobedience to the Order and
Discipline of the Church.
The Judicial Council reaffirms Fair Process (¶ 2623) and Decisions 557,
723, and 724, in any action leading to a complaint and charge.
As to Docket No. III, the request from the Illinois Great Rivers Annual
Conference for a declaratory decision on whether the Social Principles
are to be understood as law for United Methodists and the relationship
between the Social Principles and chargeable offense,  the council is
unable to render a definitive decision on all of the specific provisions
of the paragraphs under the section designated as Social Principles
without a reference to a specific paragraph.  This is especially true
when the request includes relating these matters to chargeable offenses.

	Decision

The prohibitive statement in ¶ 65.C of the 1996 Discipline: "Ceremonies
that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers
and shall not be conducted in our churches," has the effect of church
law, notwithstanding its placement in ¶ 65.C and, therefore, governs the
conduct of the ministerial office.  Conduct in violation of this
prohibition renders a pastor liable to a charge of disobedience to the
Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church under ¶ 2624  of the
Discipline.

August 8, 1998

This copy subject to final editing and correction.

This copy subject to final editing and correction.

MEMORANDUM 834

IN RE:  Request from Wisconsin Annual Conference on the Ruling of Bishop
Sharon Zimmerman Rader on Whether the Annual Conference May Consider
Enactment of a Resolution Prohibiting Homosexual Unions Which Would Have
the Effect of Adding to the Discipline.

	At the 1996 session of the Wisconsin Annual Conference a
resolution prohibiting clergy from performing ceremonies for homosexual
unions was presented. Bishop Sharon Zimmerman Rader ruled the resolution
out of order as its presentation did not comply with the rules of the
Annual Conference pertaining to resolutions.  

DIGEST

		The bishop did not render a decision of law but made a
parliamentary ruling on a motion before the Annual Conference.  As no
decision of law was made, the Judicial Council does not have
jurisdiction in this matter.

August 8, 1998

This copy subject to final editing and correction.

United Methodist News Service
(615)742-5470
Releases and photos also available at
http://www.umc.org/umns/